It isn't the government's job to redestribute their wealth. We have poor and we have rich. It's not fair, and neither is life.
well damn then... If you get held up by someone who's either poor or wants your money, you should not report it to the police after all, life is unfair, we have rich and we have poor and we have folks who the poor or wanna be rich want to stick up. And before you go into the whole well that's illegal, well so is what Enron did to it's shareholders and employees. Outright stick up job. But of course a corporation is an entity itself just like any other person in the US with a soc security number and you can't quite puyt handcuffs on a corp and send it to jail.
So if it worked for you Anders, why wouldn't this work in the United States?
(I think) IT WILL! As long as you don´t spend it on those who are rich. And (as someone mentioned above) you use it to start kick the economy and don´t make the the tax cuts permanent.
Keynian economics works when you don´t go overboard, do have an eye one the state and national balance and remember that there is a time for spending (now) and a time for savings (when the economy is going again).
AFAICS the Bush economic policy is not following any of those advices.
First, the deficits in the 19080's can hardly be called "Reagan Deficits". Revenue doubled during his terms, but spending was out of control. Partly due to the military I admit....but tht's another debate.
Hmm, so Reagan gets credit for increasing revenues, but not increasing spending? Interesting. I suppose the same is going on with Bush now, right? Never mind that both Reagan and now Bush themselves supported every last bit of those huge increases in spending.
Quote:
Now, tax cuts. BRussell says tax cuts should be temporary. That's wrong. There are two types of people in the US: Those who think taxes on the whole are outrageously, immorally high....and those who don't. I am in the first group.
Wow, cutting taxes. That is SO courageous. How can you take such a politically unpopular stand? The problem is that you just don't care about cutting spending commensurately. That's why you're a Bush guy - cut taxes on ME now, don't reduce spending at all, and let someone else deal with the consequences. Let's try this: keep using your credit card while simultaneously reducing your monthly payments on it. It'll be OK. It's the magic of Reaganomics!
Quote:
BRussell's rhetoric on the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is simply tired and ridiculous. The fact is people have a right to keep their money. It isn't the government's job to redestribute their wealth. We have poor and we have rich. It's not fair, and neither is life.
I think a huge gap between rich and poor, as we have in the US, is the sign of a sick society. Increased political power goes to the wealthy to protect themselves. Right now, the top million or two families in the US control as much wealth and power as the bottom half of the country. Bush is their man. Elimination of taxes on dividends and estate taxes, reduction of marginal rates, etc.
Quote:
Deficits: In the short term, they don't matter. In the long term, they do.
I agree. THEN WHY THE **** DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH'S POLICIES?!?! You make no sense man.
Is there anyone here who actually believes a tax on the rich works?
I showed pretty well in another thread that with the rich there is so much incentive to avoid the tax that they can spend literally thousands of dollars on avoiding it and come out ahead. It is the middle class guy and the poor who always get screwed by taxes. The government literally uses envy and their own ignorance to pound them with taxes.
The tax on highest incomes right now is 31% if I recall correctly. If I made a million dollars I can spend anything up to $310,000 both avoiding and paying taxes and still come out ahead. If I pay some lawyers and accountants $100,000 to hide enough of my income so that I only pay $100,000 in taxes, (still more than most people would pay in over a dozen years) I am still ahead $110,000.
Again for the guy making $45,000 and being taxed at 14% his tax would be $6,300. There is little incentive to avoid it because the penalties and problems of being audited would cost much more than his taxes. (Remember the other guy could fight an audit to the tune of $110k and still break even)
With the level of wealth in the U.S. if there were true wealth redistribution going on, do you think people would have to live as they do now? The wealth is redistributed from the middle and poor class back to themselves. The fact that it goes through the government just means they end up with less. Social Security is the best example of this because it is 13% that is gone instead of sitting in a 401k, or investment of some sort earning wealth for them. Instead the government keeps it and doesn't guarantee any return. (It might be there when you retire)
I see this first hand as a landlord. If I totalled up all the adults renting my properties it would be 16 people. The could easily out vote me in an election. Suppose the next election comes along and they have been convinced to sock it to the rich by passing a special assessment on property owners. The special assessment is $100 per property per year to keep emergency rooms open.
I receive assessment and just an amazing coincidence, their rents happen to go up. So they voted a tax on themselves trying to get the "rich."
This is why with all this "weath redistribution" going on you now have families working 1.5-2 full time jobs to just get by. Everytime they feel screwed they can go sock it too the rich and amazingly enough they always end up screwed and working harder. To get by they finance ever more stuff which is really a "poor" tax paid to corporations.
Voting for someone to give you money doesn't work. The rich know how money works and will ALWAYS come out ahead.
Try it. It worked for us ten years ago when we were in the same mess you are in now. Tax cuts for the poorest and started public spendings. We build two of the longest bridges in the world, a new district and a much needed metro here in Copenhagen and started a lot of other public construction work. All in the 90s. Now we have surplus on state and national budget.
Really, there are no other variables there? And please: The measure of success is public works projects? OK.
Sonjata:
Quote:
well damn then... If you get held up by someone who's either poor or wants your money, you should not report it to the police after all, life is unfair, we have rich and we have poor and we have folks who the poor or wanna be rich want to stick up. And before you go into the whole well that's illegal, well so is what Enron did to it's shareholders and employees. Outright stick up job. But of course a corporation is an entity itself just like any other person in the US with a soc security number and you can't quite puyt handcuffs on a corp and send it to jail.
Wow. A few *small leaps* you made there, no? You equate the unfairness of being poor with the complete illegality and immorality of robbing someone? Oh, OK....because poor people MUST steal, right? Have a nice day, Mr. Santorum.
BRussel:
Quote:
Hmm, so Reagan gets credit for increasing revenues, but not increasing spending? Interesting. I suppose the same is going on with Bush now, right? Never mind that both Reagan and now Bush themselves supported every last bit of those huge increases in spending.
Reagan was responsible for the military spedning. Reagan was a huge proponent of limited government and spending. That belief was at his very core. It was present in nearly every speech he made since 1964. The real pork barelling came from the Democratic congress. This is historical fact. On a side note: I support and approve of the military spending in the 1980's. I believe that it was necessary at the time due to the cold war. Had we negotiated from a position of weakness....like Carter did...we would never have "won". The Soviets had to be convinced that we could outspend them on defense indefinitely. Reagan actually explained this (literally) to Gorbachev. Gorbachev began to realize that his country could never do what we were doing. In toher words, a military buildup actually avoided an arms race.
Now, Bush has asked spending be limited on numerous ocassions, especially with the raw percentage increase in the budget per year. I agree though, that he does not stand for enough limited government. That is one major problem I have with him. What we need is federal budget DECREASES, not increases of any size. That being said, I also realize that given the massive reorganization caused by 9/11, he *may* be unable to limit the size right now.
Quote:
Wow, cutting taxes. That is SO courageous. How can you take such a politically unpopular stand? The problem is that you just don't care about cutting spending commensurately. That's why you're a Bush guy - cut taxes on ME now, don't reduce spending at all, and let someone else deal with the consequences. Let's try this: keep using your credit card while simultaneously reducing your monthly payments on it. It'll be OK. It's the magic of Reaganomics!
1) I don't feel that way because it is popular. I could really care less.
2) You are extremely wrong about my views on spending. But, you fail to realize that Congress and its pork barreling is more of a factor than Bush is. I would like to see him be more vocal about it, as I said. Let's put the Reaganomics rhetoric away. You can't argue with hard numbers. Government revenue doubled and the economy came out of not just a recession, but a near depression. Reagan PROVED that massive cuts can INCREASE revenue. And yes, he proved that when the rich are included, the economy benefits. Reagan really didn't like deficits, but he did feel they were required or at least a necessary evil at the time. That is also a fact, BRussell.
Quote:
I think a huge gap between rich and poor, as we have in the US, is the sign of a sick society. Increased political power goes to the wealthy to protect themselves. Right now, the top million or two families in the US control as much wealth and power as the bottom half of the country. Bush is their man. Elimination of taxes on dividends and estate taxes, reduction of marginal rates, etc.
Perhaps. But you assume the government is the reason for the gap. It's not. Well, actually it IS. It CONTRIBUTES to the gap through its failed social programs which have increased in size and scope since the 1930's, but moreso since Johnson and the Great Society. In other words, the government has created a welfare state and a portion of the population that is utterly dependent on it. Bascially, I believe the experiment of the Great Society was a MASSIVE and UNQUESTIONABLE failure. Look at the numbers on government poverty spending in constant dollars sicne the 1940's. You'll see that the most progress was made in terms of lowering the poverty percentage when the government was spending FAR LESS. And why is it that the wealthy have to protect themsevles? Because the government taxes them at confiscatory rates. There is a unspoken belief on the Left that to be wealthy is inherently wrong or immoral (despite the existence of so many wealthy sanctimonious liberal elitists like your boy Clinton). Of course they have to protect themselves.
Furthermore, don't make the assumption that the Estate Tax and Dividend tax affects only the "rich". Many people who are upper middle class retire with net worths above $1 million, the current cut off for federal estate tax (and the state takes more, in PA I paid 4.5% of the estate value when my Mom passed). A million dollars could easily be had with a nice house, lots of investment and a little luck. It's not uncommon. The tax is ARCHAIC. It was created to prevent the.....wait for it.....passing on of family wealth through the generations. In other words.... REDISTRIBUTION. Hmmm..
And, news flash: MANY people collect dividends. I do, you probably do, and most people we know do. It is completely false (and convenient) to assume only the "rich" collect them.
And here is the key point: It is morally wrong to tax money twice. It is morally wrong to take up to 2/3 of an estate just because an individual is "rich". Oh, and for the record, I support Bush's plan in particular because I think it will make the tax laws more fair than they are now. The dividend cut, in addition to being a moral move, will also probably stimulate the stock market by encouraging dividend reinvestment. It's really a brilliant idea. That was the first thought I had when I heard about the dividend plan.
You really don't know who you are talking to here! It may be easy for some here to paint me as an illogical, mindless Bush-following right wing wack job, but I will be more than happy to defend ANY of my positions in detail. I have a put a great deal of thought into each and every one.
Wow. A few *small leaps* you made there, no? You equate the unfairness of being poor with the complete illegality and immorality of robbing someone? Oh, OK....because poor people MUST steal, right? Have a nice day, Mr. Santorum.
.
that you could not even touch my first post on the subject speaks volumes.
and if you please, most if not all people who commit armed robbery are not rich by any measure.
NAd the failure pf the Great Society, which I'll agree with, was a failure not due to expenditures or lack thereof.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, teh Euro is about to reach record highs against both the pound and the Dollar. European companies are fretting because the US is their largest customer. the US consumes a majority of the worlds goods and natural resources. But when they wise up and look at the emerging markets in SE Asian, Africa and the Middle East, and see that there are more people who could potentially consume (not that I agree with the consumer mentality), and they shift towards marketing to those places, Deflation will most definitely happen and no amount of "moral wars" are going to do sqaut about it.
that you could not even touch my first post on the subject speaks volumes.
and if you please, most if not all people who commit armed robbery are not rich by any measure.
NAd the failure pf the Great Society, which I'll agree with, was a failure not due to expenditures or lack thereof.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, teh Euro is about to reach record highs against both the pound and the Dollar. European companies are fretting because the US is their largest customer. the US consumes a majority of the worlds goods and natural resources. But when they wise up and look at the emerging markets in SE Asian, Africa and the Middle East, and see that there are more people who could potentially consume (not that I agree with the consumer mentality), and they shift towards marketing to those places, Deflation will most definitely happen and no amount of "moral wars" are going to do sqaut about it.
I responded to the most recent post. You can't criticize me for not seeing the other one.... while assuming that I am dumbfounded by your unbelievable saliency. Please.
And perhaps you could miss my point a little more: The Great Society failed because it created dependency. So has the war on poverty. I would be interested in your encyclopedic knowledge of the programs and the reasons for failure.
Now, the economy. Deflation will not "definitely" happen. That's blatant specualtion. The US still has more consumer power because we have more money. It's that simple. I wouldn't start predicting the end of the dollar quite yet, my friend. No nation can come within even 10 times our economic power. It will be a long time before any nation matches us.
oh boy. The tax cut proposal is a distraction like those weapons in Iraq.
And that is an unsubstantiated opinion. Distraction from what? An economy that is experiencing slow growth but not recession, while we are still 18 months away from an election?
Quote:
Because of the recession (supposedly aided and abbetted by 9-11) there are massive cuts in expenditures by City Hall.
1) By historic definition we never had a recession. It is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We never had that. The economy barely contracted at all. I agree that we had a PRACTICAL recession. And OF COURSE 9/11 affected the economy. Please don;t tell me you are actually suggesting otherwise.
2) Documentation? This is not always true.
Quote:
If they live in a two fare zone then we're talking $520 a year. Say these same families depended on free afterschool programs or preschool programs that are now being phased out. How much in new child care costs are they going to have to shell out for the year? $1,000? And then if these same people own property then they are looking at an 8% property tax hike, which results in another $500 or more to thier yearly tax burden. SO in reality this so called "give the people their money" tax reform is nothing.. Literally. Because the funds that are not being sent to cities are being paid for by tax payers in higher local taxes.
And there it is: DEPEND. Exactly. They "need" these free government programs. Oh, I see. And this is all because of "Bush's tax cut"? Of course....mass starvation, grandma's not getting her social security check this month...oh the humanity!
Your numbers above are also total fiction. Even if they were true, you can't prove that a tax cut would cause any of it.
And your ridiculous argument about giving the people their money being a bad thing....GOOD GOD!!!! Your argument is the very essence of big governent thinking. That's right, let the GOVERNMENT tax us and then give us the money back through "free programs". Jesus. You are hopless.
And I will say this one more time: Signficant tax cuts INCREASE government revenue. That is historical fact. It has been proven time and time again. Have you not heard the adage? "In the beginning, there exists a large amount of revenue from a small percentage of taxation. In the end, just the opposite is true". But by all means, TAX and SPEND.
Quote:
...They are desperately, or should be desperately, attempting to repay the high interest debt they have. So any tax check that comes thier way will go directly to their debtors, though some will foolishly go and get more consumer goods. So the tax money, instead of going into income generating vehicles will actually go right into the hands of the corporations that put Mr. Bush and Dick in power. I mean, I have clients and it would do ME a whole lot of good if they could pay me what they owe me faster rather than invest in their own futures.
Wow. So a tax cut is useless? Let me ask you....why do you think it is that people have so much debt? I'll tell you why! Because most people cannot afford to lve a decent life with modern conevienences (while still saving for things like college education and retirement) because we are taxed at CONFISCATORY rates. That's why. Oh, I agree....some just cannot control their spending. That's true. Life is expensive, and it isn;t any easier when we are taxed like we are. My property taxes alone account for more than 10% of gross income. And DON'T TELL ME that's because of Bush's tax cut. It's because the federal and state goverments spend too much God Damn money on social welfare programs that create dependency. It's because we should only be funding the essentials: Defense, Education, Care for those who are legitimately unable to provide for themselves, law enforcement, etc. The problem is spending!
I really don't think you have any idea how much pork there is in the federal and state budgets.
A tax cut is NOT useless. Like most liberals, you have gotten youself all tied up in the specifics and lost sight of the basic principle that holds firm: Since a full 2/3 of the US economy is based on consumer spending, people must be allowed to keep more of what they earn so they can spend it. Even if we assume that EVERY tax payer who got, say, a $1000 tax break this year and every year for 3 years put that money into debt-payoff vehicles, that would eventually free up more credit for them to use later.
And here is what really gets me: People with your tax and spend positions rail against deficits. You say that we must pay off the national debt because the interest is causing INFLATION (not deflation) and will thereby raise rates and weaken the economy. YET INEXPLICABLY, the American people should not be allowed to keep more of what is rightfully theirs to begin with...even IF it is to pay of THEIR debt. Wow. Nice double standard induced by circular logic you have goin' there. If paying off debt is good for the government, it's good for consumers too. Or, should we, the greedy SUV-driving Americans we are, be told by the sanctimonious liberal elitists like you that we're just going to have to learn to do with what we have? Or possibly, LESS than we have now?
Quote:
he smart thing to do now is to hold taxes right as they are and cut this military spending.
What??? While there may be waste at the Pentagon, the FIRST and PRIMARY job out government has is to PROTECT the American people. Clinton cut military spending by almost 30% and it got him a demoralized, unfocused and out-dated force. This is the one area we absolutely CANNOT cut right now.
Quote:
.....of Higher Ed for all students is somewhere around 2% of the entire Federal Budget. If the govt paid for one or two semesters for every student in college not only would it result in real savings by reducing the actual debt that a student would have, but it would go a long way to better prepare the population for furture employment (self-employed preferable). The money that was spent on arming the Military for this war could have gone to various school programs which would have paid dividends in less school delinqency which in turn would have had an effect of the number of crimes, the number of the low skilled unemployed, etc.
But Americans have shown that theyed rather have thier money spent on blowing Iraqis to bits and sending arms to Israel to blow up Palestinians, than take care of "home."
1) It is NOT the government's job to pay for college. The government is YOU and I. That's ME paying for your college, not the big, benevolent omni-present federal government.
2) Most middle and working class people would have no trouble aall meeting their priorities concerning college saving if they were allowed to keep more of their money.
3) Less school delinquincy? You have no factual basis for that statement. None whatsover. Ditto on you extrapolation regarding crime. Money isn't always the problem. Los Angeles Unified School District is one of the worst in the nation. It spends 12 Billion a year and has one of the highest dollars per student stats in the nation. I agree education can be an equalizer, but we spend literally TONS of money on it and it keeps getting worse in many ways. Take it from a teacher.
4) You may like to think that we live in a world where we don't need a military, but we don't. We live in a dangerous world and only strength will make it less dangerous. And yes...it is now less dangerous. The world, in particular the Arab world, has seen that US will follow through on its words. Raw power is what that part of the world understands. Call me a bigot if you like...my statment is true.
5) No, what I'd like is for the government to spend about 25-30% less every year. I'd like not to have 50% of my gross income go to federal, state or local agency in the form of a "revenue enhancement". I'd like for our respective governments to stop wasting money like they're at the frozen yogurt machine at Homestyle Family Buffett....that's what I'd like. I'd like for our government to fund defense and security, education and care for those who are disabled. I'd like for it to get the hell out my life and my checkbook. Americans are more than willing to take care of "home"...that's not the problem. It's that many of us feel it isn't the government's job to provide for our every whim.
6) However horrible war can be, I am more than willing to support it if it prevents the possible hand-off of WOMD to a terrorist organization like Al-Queda, all while liberating 25 million people from a ruthless dicatator. The links to Al-Queda are now well documented, my friend. It's not a theory anymore.
7) Israel: The way in which you make your point shows your bias. While I have my problems with Israel's approach, there is NO EXCUSE for homicide bombings. None. Israel has a right to defend itself.
Look, we can argue all day if you want. More money for working Americans means a better economy. Period. If you don;t believe that, it is pointless to even argue with you.
Is there anyone here who actually believes a tax on the rich works?
I showed pretty well in another thread that with the rich there is so much incentive to avoid the tax that they can spend literally thousands of dollars on avoiding it and come out ahead. It is the middle class guy and the poor who always get screwed by taxes. The government literally uses envy and their own ignorance to pound them with taxes.
The tax on highest incomes right now is 31% if I recall correctly. If I made a million dollars I can spend anything up to $310,000 both avoiding and paying taxes and still come out ahead. If I pay some lawyers and accountants $100,000 to hide enough of my income so that I only pay $100,000 in taxes, (still more than most people would pay in over a dozen years) I am still ahead $110,000.
Again for the guy making $45,000 and being taxed at 14% his tax would be $6,300. There is little incentive to avoid it because the penalties and problems of being audited would cost much more than his taxes. (Remember the other guy could fight an audit to the tune of $110k and still break even)
With the level of wealth in the U.S. if there were true wealth redistribution going on, do you think people would have to live as they do now? The wealth is redistributed from the middle and poor class back to themselves. The fact that it goes through the government just means they end up with less. Social Security is the best example of this because it is 13% that is gone instead of sitting in a 401k, or investment of some sort earning wealth for them. Instead the government keeps it and doesn't guarantee any return. (It might be there when you retire)
I see this first hand as a landlord. If I totalled up all the adults renting my properties it would be 16 people. The could easily out vote me in an election. Suppose the next election comes along and they have been convinced to sock it to the rich by passing a special assessment on property owners. The special assessment is $100 per property per year to keep emergency rooms open.
I receive assessment and just an amazing coincidence, their rents happen to go up. So they voted a tax on themselves trying to get the "rich."
This is why with all this "weath redistribution" going on you now have families working 1.5-2 full time jobs to just get by. Everytime they feel screwed they can go sock it too the rich and amazingly enough they always end up screwed and working harder. To get by they finance ever more stuff which is really a "poor" tax paid to corporations.
Voting for someone to give you money doesn't work. The rich know how money works and will ALWAYS come out ahead.
Nick
This whole agreeing with you thing is starting to turn into a pattern.
1) It is NOT the government's job to pay for college. The government is YOU and I. That's ME paying for your college, not the big, benevolent omni-present federal government.
I dunno. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to provide better education for my fellow countrymen. Frankly, education should be our number one priority. We are academically a disgrace in this world. Teaching should be a well respected high paid profession and students who are academically qualified should be encouraged to pursue whichever field they want without financial barriers.
I have a friend who is quite intelligent and passionate about working in the field of bioinformatics. He, being middle class, is screwed and cannot go to his first choice of colleges because he cannot afford the tuition without extensive loans and since his household income is just above the cutoff for full scholarships, he can't get enough aid to attend. Now, this person is capable of making an impact on entire human race with his passion for that science, yet we have our priorities mixed up and don't take down his barriers to success.
1) It is NOT the government's job to pay for college. The government is YOU and I. That's ME paying for your college, not the big, benevolent omni-present federal government.
I dunno. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to provide better education for my fellow countrymen. Frankly, education should be our number one priority. We are academically a disgrace in this world. Teaching should be a well respected high paid profession and students who are academically qualified should be encouraged to pursue whichever field they want without financial barriers.
I have a friend who is quite intelligent and passionate about working in the field of bioinformatics. He, being middle class, is screwed and cannot go to his first choice of colleges because he cannot afford the tuition without extensive loans and since his household income is just above the cutoff for full scholarships, he can't get enough aid to attend. Now, this person is capable of making an impact on entire human race with his passion for that science, yet we have our priorities mixed up and don't take down his barriers to success.
Welcome to reality BR. Pull up a chair.
A lot of things would be nice BR but the world is not utopia. Things do cost money and for those who see it as worth it they will pay the price. It is not about handouts.
A lot of things would be nice BR but the world is not utopia. Things do cost money and for those who see it as worth it they will pay the price. It is not about handouts.
Fellowship
Of course there is a price. This is finally a cause worthy of our tax dollars. Don't welcome me to reality you pompous fool. For someone who claims to know as much about economics as you do, you are quite the ignorant one when it comes to this situation.
It's not a handout. It's an investment in our future. Frankly, I can't think of any better investment than taking down the financial barriers for the greatest young minds of our society. Enjoy your extra couple thousand dollars a year. Just remember it comes at the price of you dying of a disease that could have been cured if we invested wisely.
Of course there is a price. This is finally a cause worthy of our tax dollars. Don't welcome me to reality you pompous fool. For someone who claims to know as much about economics as you do, you are quite the ignorant one when it comes to this situation.
It's not a handout. It's an investment in our future. Frankly, I can't think of any better investment than taking down the financial barriers for the greatest young minds of our society. Enjoy your extra couple thousand dollars a year. Just remember it comes at the price of you dying of a disease that could have been cured if we invested wisely.
Your greed makes me sick.
BR I am not unsympathetic to your ideas.
Here is what I am saying.
Where do you draw the line of what the "people" pay for collectively and what is not paid for.
For example.
Take a homeless guy on the street.
With lawn mowing equip and a truck the guy could start a business and cut lawns. Will you fund him?
What about a 16 year old girl who wants singing lessons as she believe she will be the next big star. Will you fund her.
What about a 35 year old man who wants to start a home building company but needs $300,000. will you fund him?
I could spell out example after example
Where do you stop your funding?
Who is to judge?
BR it is called credit.
People can take out loans to do things.
The govenrment of no country funds all desires of all people.
Might not make you feel good but this is not a perfect world.
With education its rather simple. Apply the logic of capitalism but replace money with knowledge. Those who have showed to be the best in high school should have the first choice in education. This way the resources are allocated most optimal. They win and you win.
Every man is created equal should not be taken as an assumption but as a promise: Let the babies start at the same start line and let them run on the same track. How they run and what decisions they make will influence how far they go and how they posiion themselves compared to everybody else. But to give them the same options according to their abilities.
Stop bringing in other issues. I am talking about education and education alone.
Education alone doesn't guarantee any sort of financial outcome. It doesn't even guarantee you will take the time to balance your checkbook.
College doesn't = wealth generation. You can get your degree and end up busing tables and delivering pizza if there is no application for what you have learned.
My degree is in music education. Do you want to know how many music majors have their degree but still haven't made a dime?
Why should the government fund this?
If society needs it, they will insure the financial outcome for the job pays for the school. I've read that right now a lot of lawyers have trouble paying for their rather expensive schooling after they begin working. When you look at the number of lawyers we have per capita, it isn't hard to see why some of them can't earn enough.
Likewise we don't have enough nurses and it seems to have been this way for well over a decade now. Safe for teachers, but now that all the states are threatening layoffs we likely won't have enough teachers for....pretty much ever....
trumptman.....I have a degree in music ed also. Where did you go for it?
BR:
I agree and disagree. I can't possibly imagine more taxes than we have now, though. I am not joking here: HALF of most people's incomes go to a federal, state or lacal agency during a year. Whether it's a tax, license, fee, surcharge, whatever....HALF, BR. That is patently outrageous.
This is one reason, as I said, that people have so much debt. One cannot afford to live with modern niceities and still save for college, retirement, etc. Perhaps it is because people pay about 20% of every check in income and SS taxes alone.
You know what my school and county taxes are? $400 a month....on a house with a tax appraisal of like 170,000. My mortgage is only 980 a month! Tell me what is wrong here!?!? ALL of our governments take OBSCENELY high amoutns of money. Not just from the rich, but from two income families like mine...earning about 65K a year.
On the college thing: The example given with regard to the guy who cant afford colege without loans has a simple answer: GET THE LOANS. But no...the solution for BR and most other liberals is "the government should pay for it".
My Dad was at a party one time last year, and overheard a very Left leaning woman talking about HER father. She went on and on about the fact that he was 65 now and he needed more SS money and how the government wasn't doing enough. As far as I know, he was able-bodied. "What is he supposed to do?", she asked.
My father, who remained quiet until then, said: "Let me tell you something. My grandfather died on the job at 92 years old after working his whole life......and do you know why???" "No", the woman replied". My Dad simply said:
Is the US facing a future of deflation? Japan has had a deflationary period for more than a decade now. Is it possible we are facing deflationary pressures excluding some sectors? I believe we are if we don't act with some policy changes.
Here is my question. If we are facing a future of deflation which would harm the health of financial instutions as well as investor confidence can we allow it to procede with no actions taken? I would submit a big "no" we can not allow it to worsen.
What do we do then....
Fellowship
Thought I would stop ranting a second and actually address the topic.
I don't think we have to worry about deflation in the U.S. Our economy could easily handle inflation more easily, but it wouldn't survive deflation.
Part of the trend to fight deflation is allowing the dollar to trend lower against other currencies. Sammi Jo sees this as a conspiracy thing, but in reality the dollar going lower raises prices of imports which gives U.S. businesses a bit more price control and hence the can fight deflation.
As for the example with your truck, the automakers have simply, in my opinion, not realized they need to pass on technological improvements and keep the price the same. They got to take these as profits for a bit, especially with tricky financing where lots of people were burned by lease to own options.
Now they have returned those leased vehicles and found even more terrible lease terms (12,000 miles per year, etc.) However now they all think SUVs with power everything should be standard. In some ways cars should have a lot more standard features. Sort of like how optical mice will eventually replace mechnical mice and be cheaper.
In the meantime, automakers want to keep their old prices and find some suckers. Some will fall for another round of stupid financing. Auto financing always finds a way to screw you. The second way is just rebates like you received which really is just a way of dropping the price to what it should be.
In the conspiracy/money circles most things I have read have said that if anything we are going to go through some intentional inflation soon. Opening up the money supply (not just credit) will start to raise prices. Some have suggested that if they can do this in a controlled manner, they can dramatically reduce things like deficits while maintaining reasonable growth. Of course if this is believed then all the retirees would be screwed because inflation will kill their retirements which are based off of set amounts and those amounts will now be worth less compared to what they were before. This happens somewhat anyway, but the process would be accelerated.
Nick
PS SD2001, my degree is from CSULB (Cal State Long Beach)
On the college thing: The example given with regard to the guy who cant afford colege without loans has a simple answer: GET THE LOANS. But no...the solution for BR and most other liberals is "the government should pay for it".
[/B]
No. First, I'm not a liberal. Those classifications are silly.
Now that I have that out of the way...No, he shouldn't have to get the loans. When it comes to education, the government giving money to students cannot be classified as a handout. IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE OF THE FVCKING COUNTRY. Leave all the other crap out of this. I'm talking specifically about education. Don't bring up SS to help your argument because it's irrelevant. He shouldn't be screwed for being from a lower middle class family.
Listen, SDW, our nation is an ACADEMIC DISGRACE. It's no wonder people like you exist...and the problem is self-perpetuating.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
It isn't the government's job to redestribute their wealth. We have poor and we have rich. It's not fair, and neither is life.
well damn then... If you get held up by someone who's either poor or wants your money, you should not report it to the police after all, life is unfair, we have rich and we have poor and we have folks who the poor or wanna be rich want to stick up. And before you go into the whole well that's illegal, well so is what Enron did to it's shareholders and employees. Outright stick up job. But of course a corporation is an entity itself just like any other person in the US with a soc security number and you can't quite puyt handcuffs on a corp and send it to jail.
Originally posted by bunge
So if it worked for you Anders, why wouldn't this work in the United States?
(I think) IT WILL! As long as you don´t spend it on those who are rich. And (as someone mentioned above) you use it to start kick the economy and don´t make the the tax cuts permanent.
Keynian economics works when you don´t go overboard, do have an eye one the state and national balance and remember that there is a time for spending (now) and a time for savings (when the economy is going again).
AFAICS the Bush economic policy is not following any of those advices.
Originally posted by Anders the White
(I think) IT WILL! As long as you don´t spend it on those who are rich.
Well I know YOU see that, I was hoping some of those opposed to your plan could shed some light on how it didn't actually work in Denmark.
Originally posted by SDW2001
First, the deficits in the 19080's can hardly be called "Reagan Deficits". Revenue doubled during his terms, but spending was out of control. Partly due to the military I admit....but tht's another debate.
Hmm, so Reagan gets credit for increasing revenues, but not increasing spending? Interesting. I suppose the same is going on with Bush now, right? Never mind that both Reagan and now Bush themselves supported every last bit of those huge increases in spending.
Now, tax cuts. BRussell says tax cuts should be temporary. That's wrong. There are two types of people in the US: Those who think taxes on the whole are outrageously, immorally high....and those who don't. I am in the first group.
Wow, cutting taxes. That is SO courageous. How can you take such a politically unpopular stand? The problem is that you just don't care about cutting spending commensurately. That's why you're a Bush guy - cut taxes on ME now, don't reduce spending at all, and let someone else deal with the consequences. Let's try this: keep using your credit card while simultaneously reducing your monthly payments on it. It'll be OK. It's the magic of Reaganomics!
BRussell's rhetoric on the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is simply tired and ridiculous. The fact is people have a right to keep their money. It isn't the government's job to redestribute their wealth. We have poor and we have rich. It's not fair, and neither is life.
I think a huge gap between rich and poor, as we have in the US, is the sign of a sick society. Increased political power goes to the wealthy to protect themselves. Right now, the top million or two families in the US control as much wealth and power as the bottom half of the country. Bush is their man. Elimination of taxes on dividends and estate taxes, reduction of marginal rates, etc.
Deficits: In the short term, they don't matter. In the long term, they do.
I agree. THEN WHY THE **** DO YOU SUPPORT BUSH'S POLICIES?!?! You make no sense man.
I showed pretty well in another thread that with the rich there is so much incentive to avoid the tax that they can spend literally thousands of dollars on avoiding it and come out ahead. It is the middle class guy and the poor who always get screwed by taxes. The government literally uses envy and their own ignorance to pound them with taxes.
The tax on highest incomes right now is 31% if I recall correctly. If I made a million dollars I can spend anything up to $310,000 both avoiding and paying taxes and still come out ahead. If I pay some lawyers and accountants $100,000 to hide enough of my income so that I only pay $100,000 in taxes, (still more than most people would pay in over a dozen years) I am still ahead $110,000.
Again for the guy making $45,000 and being taxed at 14% his tax would be $6,300. There is little incentive to avoid it because the penalties and problems of being audited would cost much more than his taxes. (Remember the other guy could fight an audit to the tune of $110k and still break even)
With the level of wealth in the U.S. if there were true wealth redistribution going on, do you think people would have to live as they do now? The wealth is redistributed from the middle and poor class back to themselves. The fact that it goes through the government just means they end up with less. Social Security is the best example of this because it is 13% that is gone instead of sitting in a 401k, or investment of some sort earning wealth for them. Instead the government keeps it and doesn't guarantee any return. (It might be there when you retire)
I see this first hand as a landlord. If I totalled up all the adults renting my properties it would be 16 people. The could easily out vote me in an election. Suppose the next election comes along and they have been convinced to sock it to the rich by passing a special assessment on property owners. The special assessment is $100 per property per year to keep emergency rooms open.
I receive assessment and just an amazing coincidence, their rents happen to go up. So they voted a tax on themselves trying to get the "rich."
This is why with all this "weath redistribution" going on you now have families working 1.5-2 full time jobs to just get by. Everytime they feel screwed they can go sock it too the rich and amazingly enough they always end up screwed and working harder. To get by they finance ever more stuff which is really a "poor" tax paid to corporations.
Voting for someone to give you money doesn't work. The rich know how money works and will ALWAYS come out ahead.
Nick
Try it. It worked for us ten years ago when we were in the same mess you are in now. Tax cuts for the poorest and started public spendings. We build two of the longest bridges in the world, a new district and a much needed metro here in Copenhagen and started a lot of other public construction work. All in the 90s. Now we have surplus on state and national budget.
Really, there are no other variables there? And please: The measure of success is public works projects? OK.
Sonjata:
well damn then... If you get held up by someone who's either poor or wants your money, you should not report it to the police after all, life is unfair, we have rich and we have poor and we have folks who the poor or wanna be rich want to stick up. And before you go into the whole well that's illegal, well so is what Enron did to it's shareholders and employees. Outright stick up job. But of course a corporation is an entity itself just like any other person in the US with a soc security number and you can't quite puyt handcuffs on a corp and send it to jail.
Wow. A few *small leaps* you made there, no? You equate the unfairness of being poor with the complete illegality and immorality of robbing someone? Oh, OK....because poor people MUST steal, right? Have a nice day, Mr. Santorum.
BRussel:
Hmm, so Reagan gets credit for increasing revenues, but not increasing spending? Interesting. I suppose the same is going on with Bush now, right? Never mind that both Reagan and now Bush themselves supported every last bit of those huge increases in spending.
Reagan was responsible for the military spedning. Reagan was a huge proponent of limited government and spending. That belief was at his very core. It was present in nearly every speech he made since 1964. The real pork barelling came from the Democratic congress. This is historical fact. On a side note: I support and approve of the military spending in the 1980's. I believe that it was necessary at the time due to the cold war. Had we negotiated from a position of weakness....like Carter did...we would never have "won". The Soviets had to be convinced that we could outspend them on defense indefinitely. Reagan actually explained this (literally) to Gorbachev. Gorbachev began to realize that his country could never do what we were doing. In toher words, a military buildup actually avoided an arms race.
Now, Bush has asked spending be limited on numerous ocassions, especially with the raw percentage increase in the budget per year. I agree though, that he does not stand for enough limited government. That is one major problem I have with him. What we need is federal budget DECREASES, not increases of any size. That being said, I also realize that given the massive reorganization caused by 9/11, he *may* be unable to limit the size right now.
Wow, cutting taxes. That is SO courageous. How can you take such a politically unpopular stand? The problem is that you just don't care about cutting spending commensurately. That's why you're a Bush guy - cut taxes on ME now, don't reduce spending at all, and let someone else deal with the consequences. Let's try this: keep using your credit card while simultaneously reducing your monthly payments on it. It'll be OK. It's the magic of Reaganomics!
1) I don't feel that way because it is popular. I could really care less.
2) You are extremely wrong about my views on spending. But, you fail to realize that Congress and its pork barreling is more of a factor than Bush is. I would like to see him be more vocal about it, as I said. Let's put the Reaganomics rhetoric away. You can't argue with hard numbers. Government revenue doubled and the economy came out of not just a recession, but a near depression. Reagan PROVED that massive cuts can INCREASE revenue. And yes, he proved that when the rich are included, the economy benefits. Reagan really didn't like deficits, but he did feel they were required or at least a necessary evil at the time. That is also a fact, BRussell.
I think a huge gap between rich and poor, as we have in the US, is the sign of a sick society. Increased political power goes to the wealthy to protect themselves. Right now, the top million or two families in the US control as much wealth and power as the bottom half of the country. Bush is their man. Elimination of taxes on dividends and estate taxes, reduction of marginal rates, etc.
Perhaps. But you assume the government is the reason for the gap. It's not. Well, actually it IS. It CONTRIBUTES to the gap through its failed social programs which have increased in size and scope since the 1930's, but moreso since Johnson and the Great Society. In other words, the government has created a welfare state and a portion of the population that is utterly dependent on it. Bascially, I believe the experiment of the Great Society was a MASSIVE and UNQUESTIONABLE failure. Look at the numbers on government poverty spending in constant dollars sicne the 1940's. You'll see that the most progress was made in terms of lowering the poverty percentage when the government was spending FAR LESS. And why is it that the wealthy have to protect themsevles? Because the government taxes them at confiscatory rates. There is a unspoken belief on the Left that to be wealthy is inherently wrong or immoral (despite the existence of so many wealthy sanctimonious liberal elitists like your boy Clinton). Of course they have to protect themselves.
Furthermore, don't make the assumption that the Estate Tax and Dividend tax affects only the "rich". Many people who are upper middle class retire with net worths above $1 million, the current cut off for federal estate tax (and the state takes more, in PA I paid 4.5% of the estate value when my Mom passed). A million dollars could easily be had with a nice house, lots of investment and a little luck. It's not uncommon. The tax is ARCHAIC. It was created to prevent the.....wait for it.....passing on of family wealth through the generations. In other words.... REDISTRIBUTION. Hmmm..
And, news flash: MANY people collect dividends. I do, you probably do, and most people we know do. It is completely false (and convenient) to assume only the "rich" collect them.
And here is the key point: It is morally wrong to tax money twice. It is morally wrong to take up to 2/3 of an estate just because an individual is "rich". Oh, and for the record, I support Bush's plan in particular because I think it will make the tax laws more fair than they are now. The dividend cut, in addition to being a moral move, will also probably stimulate the stock market by encouraging dividend reinvestment. It's really a brilliant idea. That was the first thought I had when I heard about the dividend plan.
You really don't know who you are talking to here! It may be easy for some here to paint me as an illogical, mindless Bush-following right wing wack job, but I will be more than happy to defend ANY of my positions in detail. I have a put a great deal of thought into each and every one.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. A few *small leaps* you made there, no? You equate the unfairness of being poor with the complete illegality and immorality of robbing someone? Oh, OK....because poor people MUST steal, right? Have a nice day, Mr. Santorum.
.
that you could not even touch my first post on the subject speaks volumes.
and if you please, most if not all people who commit armed robbery are not rich by any measure.
NAd the failure pf the Great Society, which I'll agree with, was a failure not due to expenditures or lack thereof.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, teh Euro is about to reach record highs against both the pound and the Dollar. European companies are fretting because the US is their largest customer. the US consumes a majority of the worlds goods and natural resources. But when they wise up and look at the emerging markets in SE Asian, Africa and the Middle East, and see that there are more people who could potentially consume (not that I agree with the consumer mentality), and they shift towards marketing to those places, Deflation will most definitely happen and no amount of "moral wars" are going to do sqaut about it.
Originally posted by Sondjata
that you could not even touch my first post on the subject speaks volumes.
and if you please, most if not all people who commit armed robbery are not rich by any measure.
NAd the failure pf the Great Society, which I'll agree with, was a failure not due to expenditures or lack thereof.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, teh Euro is about to reach record highs against both the pound and the Dollar. European companies are fretting because the US is their largest customer. the US consumes a majority of the worlds goods and natural resources. But when they wise up and look at the emerging markets in SE Asian, Africa and the Middle East, and see that there are more people who could potentially consume (not that I agree with the consumer mentality), and they shift towards marketing to those places, Deflation will most definitely happen and no amount of "moral wars" are going to do sqaut about it.
I responded to the most recent post. You can't criticize me for not seeing the other one.... while assuming that I am dumbfounded by your unbelievable saliency. Please.
And perhaps you could miss my point a little more: The Great Society failed because it created dependency. So has the war on poverty. I would be interested in your encyclopedic knowledge of the programs and the reasons for failure.
Now, the economy. Deflation will not "definitely" happen. That's blatant specualtion. The US still has more consumer power because we have more money. It's that simple. I wouldn't start predicting the end of the dollar quite yet, my friend. No nation can come within even 10 times our economic power. It will be a long time before any nation matches us.
oh boy. The tax cut proposal is a distraction like those weapons in Iraq.
And that is an unsubstantiated opinion. Distraction from what? An economy that is experiencing slow growth but not recession, while we are still 18 months away from an election?
Because of the recession (supposedly aided and abbetted by 9-11) there are massive cuts in expenditures by City Hall.
1) By historic definition we never had a recession. It is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We never had that. The economy barely contracted at all. I agree that we had a PRACTICAL recession. And OF COURSE 9/11 affected the economy. Please don;t tell me you are actually suggesting otherwise.
2) Documentation? This is not always true.
If they live in a two fare zone then we're talking $520 a year. Say these same families depended on free afterschool programs or preschool programs that are now being phased out. How much in new child care costs are they going to have to shell out for the year? $1,000? And then if these same people own property then they are looking at an 8% property tax hike, which results in another $500 or more to thier yearly tax burden. SO in reality this so called "give the people their money" tax reform is nothing.. Literally. Because the funds that are not being sent to cities are being paid for by tax payers in higher local taxes.
And there it is: DEPEND. Exactly. They "need" these free government programs. Oh, I see. And this is all because of "Bush's tax cut"? Of course....mass starvation, grandma's not getting her social security check this month...oh the humanity!
Your numbers above are also total fiction. Even if they were true, you can't prove that a tax cut would cause any of it.
And your ridiculous argument about giving the people their money being a bad thing....GOOD GOD!!!! Your argument is the very essence of big governent thinking. That's right, let the GOVERNMENT tax us and then give us the money back through "free programs". Jesus. You are hopless.
And I will say this one more time: Signficant tax cuts INCREASE government revenue. That is historical fact. It has been proven time and time again. Have you not heard the adage? "In the beginning, there exists a large amount of revenue from a small percentage of taxation. In the end, just the opposite is true". But by all means, TAX and SPEND.
...They are desperately, or should be desperately, attempting to repay the high interest debt they have. So any tax check that comes thier way will go directly to their debtors, though some will foolishly go and get more consumer goods. So the tax money, instead of going into income generating vehicles will actually go right into the hands of the corporations that put Mr. Bush and Dick in power. I mean, I have clients and it would do ME a whole lot of good if they could pay me what they owe me faster rather than invest in their own futures.
Wow. So a tax cut is useless? Let me ask you....why do you think it is that people have so much debt? I'll tell you why! Because most people cannot afford to lve a decent life with modern conevienences (while still saving for things like college education and retirement) because we are taxed at CONFISCATORY rates. That's why. Oh, I agree....some just cannot control their spending. That's true. Life is expensive, and it isn;t any easier when we are taxed like we are. My property taxes alone account for more than 10% of gross income. And DON'T TELL ME that's because of Bush's tax cut. It's because the federal and state goverments spend too much God Damn money on social welfare programs that create dependency. It's because we should only be funding the essentials: Defense, Education, Care for those who are legitimately unable to provide for themselves, law enforcement, etc. The problem is spending!
I really don't think you have any idea how much pork there is in the federal and state budgets.
A tax cut is NOT useless. Like most liberals, you have gotten youself all tied up in the specifics and lost sight of the basic principle that holds firm: Since a full 2/3 of the US economy is based on consumer spending, people must be allowed to keep more of what they earn so they can spend it. Even if we assume that EVERY tax payer who got, say, a $1000 tax break this year and every year for 3 years put that money into debt-payoff vehicles, that would eventually free up more credit for them to use later.
And here is what really gets me: People with your tax and spend positions rail against deficits. You say that we must pay off the national debt because the interest is causing INFLATION (not deflation) and will thereby raise rates and weaken the economy. YET INEXPLICABLY, the American people should not be allowed to keep more of what is rightfully theirs to begin with...even IF it is to pay of THEIR debt. Wow. Nice double standard induced by circular logic you have goin' there. If paying off debt is good for the government, it's good for consumers too. Or, should we, the greedy SUV-driving Americans we are, be told by the sanctimonious liberal elitists like you that we're just going to have to learn to do with what we have? Or possibly, LESS than we have now?
he smart thing to do now is to hold taxes right as they are and cut this military spending.
What??? While there may be waste at the Pentagon, the FIRST and PRIMARY job out government has is to PROTECT the American people. Clinton cut military spending by almost 30% and it got him a demoralized, unfocused and out-dated force. This is the one area we absolutely CANNOT cut right now.
.....of Higher Ed for all students is somewhere around 2% of the entire Federal Budget. If the govt paid for one or two semesters for every student in college not only would it result in real savings by reducing the actual debt that a student would have, but it would go a long way to better prepare the population for furture employment (self-employed preferable). The money that was spent on arming the Military for this war could have gone to various school programs which would have paid dividends in less school delinqency which in turn would have had an effect of the number of crimes, the number of the low skilled unemployed, etc.
But Americans have shown that theyed rather have thier money spent on blowing Iraqis to bits and sending arms to Israel to blow up Palestinians, than take care of "home."
1) It is NOT the government's job to pay for college. The government is YOU and I. That's ME paying for your college, not the big, benevolent omni-present federal government.
2) Most middle and working class people would have no trouble aall meeting their priorities concerning college saving if they were allowed to keep more of their money.
3) Less school delinquincy? You have no factual basis for that statement. None whatsover. Ditto on you extrapolation regarding crime. Money isn't always the problem. Los Angeles Unified School District is one of the worst in the nation. It spends 12 Billion a year and has one of the highest dollars per student stats in the nation. I agree education can be an equalizer, but we spend literally TONS of money on it and it keeps getting worse in many ways. Take it from a teacher.
4) You may like to think that we live in a world where we don't need a military, but we don't. We live in a dangerous world and only strength will make it less dangerous. And yes...it is now less dangerous. The world, in particular the Arab world, has seen that US will follow through on its words. Raw power is what that part of the world understands. Call me a bigot if you like...my statment is true.
5) No, what I'd like is for the government to spend about 25-30% less every year. I'd like not to have 50% of my gross income go to federal, state or local agency in the form of a "revenue enhancement". I'd like for our respective governments to stop wasting money like they're at the frozen yogurt machine at Homestyle Family Buffett....that's what I'd like. I'd like for our government to fund defense and security, education and care for those who are disabled. I'd like for it to get the hell out my life and my checkbook. Americans are more than willing to take care of "home"...that's not the problem. It's that many of us feel it isn't the government's job to provide for our every whim.
6) However horrible war can be, I am more than willing to support it if it prevents the possible hand-off of WOMD to a terrorist organization like Al-Queda, all while liberating 25 million people from a ruthless dicatator. The links to Al-Queda are now well documented, my friend. It's not a theory anymore.
7) Israel: The way in which you make your point shows your bias. While I have my problems with Israel's approach, there is NO EXCUSE for homicide bombings. None. Israel has a right to defend itself.
Look, we can argue all day if you want. More money for working Americans means a better economy. Period. If you don;t believe that, it is pointless to even argue with you.
Originally posted by trumptman
Is there anyone here who actually believes a tax on the rich works?
I showed pretty well in another thread that with the rich there is so much incentive to avoid the tax that they can spend literally thousands of dollars on avoiding it and come out ahead. It is the middle class guy and the poor who always get screwed by taxes. The government literally uses envy and their own ignorance to pound them with taxes.
The tax on highest incomes right now is 31% if I recall correctly. If I made a million dollars I can spend anything up to $310,000 both avoiding and paying taxes and still come out ahead. If I pay some lawyers and accountants $100,000 to hide enough of my income so that I only pay $100,000 in taxes, (still more than most people would pay in over a dozen years) I am still ahead $110,000.
Again for the guy making $45,000 and being taxed at 14% his tax would be $6,300. There is little incentive to avoid it because the penalties and problems of being audited would cost much more than his taxes. (Remember the other guy could fight an audit to the tune of $110k and still break even)
With the level of wealth in the U.S. if there were true wealth redistribution going on, do you think people would have to live as they do now? The wealth is redistributed from the middle and poor class back to themselves. The fact that it goes through the government just means they end up with less. Social Security is the best example of this because it is 13% that is gone instead of sitting in a 401k, or investment of some sort earning wealth for them. Instead the government keeps it and doesn't guarantee any return. (It might be there when you retire)
I see this first hand as a landlord. If I totalled up all the adults renting my properties it would be 16 people. The could easily out vote me in an election. Suppose the next election comes along and they have been convinced to sock it to the rich by passing a special assessment on property owners. The special assessment is $100 per property per year to keep emergency rooms open.
I receive assessment and just an amazing coincidence, their rents happen to go up. So they voted a tax on themselves trying to get the "rich."
This is why with all this "weath redistribution" going on you now have families working 1.5-2 full time jobs to just get by. Everytime they feel screwed they can go sock it too the rich and amazingly enough they always end up screwed and working harder. To get by they finance ever more stuff which is really a "poor" tax paid to corporations.
Voting for someone to give you money doesn't work. The rich know how money works and will ALWAYS come out ahead.
Nick
This whole agreeing with you thing is starting to turn into a pattern.
1) It is NOT the government's job to pay for college. The government is YOU and I. That's ME paying for your college, not the big, benevolent omni-present federal government.
I dunno. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to provide better education for my fellow countrymen. Frankly, education should be our number one priority. We are academically a disgrace in this world. Teaching should be a well respected high paid profession and students who are academically qualified should be encouraged to pursue whichever field they want without financial barriers.
I have a friend who is quite intelligent and passionate about working in the field of bioinformatics. He, being middle class, is screwed and cannot go to his first choice of colleges because he cannot afford the tuition without extensive loans and since his household income is just above the cutoff for full scholarships, he can't get enough aid to attend. Now, this person is capable of making an impact on entire human race with his passion for that science, yet we have our priorities mixed up and don't take down his barriers to success.
Originally posted by BR
SDW says:
1) It is NOT the government's job to pay for college. The government is YOU and I. That's ME paying for your college, not the big, benevolent omni-present federal government.
I dunno. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to provide better education for my fellow countrymen. Frankly, education should be our number one priority. We are academically a disgrace in this world. Teaching should be a well respected high paid profession and students who are academically qualified should be encouraged to pursue whichever field they want without financial barriers.
I have a friend who is quite intelligent and passionate about working in the field of bioinformatics. He, being middle class, is screwed and cannot go to his first choice of colleges because he cannot afford the tuition without extensive loans and since his household income is just above the cutoff for full scholarships, he can't get enough aid to attend. Now, this person is capable of making an impact on entire human race with his passion for that science, yet we have our priorities mixed up and don't take down his barriers to success.
Welcome to reality BR. Pull up a chair.
A lot of things would be nice BR but the world is not utopia. Things do cost money and for those who see it as worth it they will pay the price. It is not about handouts.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Welcome to reality BR. Pull up a chair.
A lot of things would be nice BR but the world is not utopia. Things do cost money and for those who see it as worth it they will pay the price. It is not about handouts.
Fellowship
Of course there is a price. This is finally a cause worthy of our tax dollars. Don't welcome me to reality you pompous fool. For someone who claims to know as much about economics as you do, you are quite the ignorant one when it comes to this situation.
It's not a handout. It's an investment in our future. Frankly, I can't think of any better investment than taking down the financial barriers for the greatest young minds of our society. Enjoy your extra couple thousand dollars a year. Just remember it comes at the price of you dying of a disease that could have been cured if we invested wisely.
Your greed makes me sick.
Originally posted by BR
Of course there is a price. This is finally a cause worthy of our tax dollars. Don't welcome me to reality you pompous fool. For someone who claims to know as much about economics as you do, you are quite the ignorant one when it comes to this situation.
It's not a handout. It's an investment in our future. Frankly, I can't think of any better investment than taking down the financial barriers for the greatest young minds of our society. Enjoy your extra couple thousand dollars a year. Just remember it comes at the price of you dying of a disease that could have been cured if we invested wisely.
Your greed makes me sick.
BR I am not unsympathetic to your ideas.
Here is what I am saying.
Where do you draw the line of what the "people" pay for collectively and what is not paid for.
For example.
Take a homeless guy on the street.
With lawn mowing equip and a truck the guy could start a business and cut lawns. Will you fund him?
What about a 16 year old girl who wants singing lessons as she believe she will be the next big star. Will you fund her.
What about a 35 year old man who wants to start a home building company but needs $300,000. will you fund him?
I could spell out example after example
Where do you stop your funding?
Who is to judge?
BR it is called credit.
People can take out loans to do things.
The govenrment of no country funds all desires of all people.
Might not make you feel good but this is not a perfect world.
Fellowship
Every man is created equal should not be taken as an assumption but as a promise: Let the babies start at the same start line and let them run on the same track. How they run and what decisions they make will influence how far they go and how they posiion themselves compared to everybody else. But to give them the same options according to their abilities.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
blah blah blah blah off topic
Stop bringing in other issues. I am talking about education and education alone.
Originally posted by BR
Stop bringing in other issues. I am talking about education and education alone.
Education alone doesn't guarantee any sort of financial outcome. It doesn't even guarantee you will take the time to balance your checkbook.
College doesn't = wealth generation. You can get your degree and end up busing tables and delivering pizza if there is no application for what you have learned.
My degree is in music education. Do you want to know how many music majors have their degree but still haven't made a dime?
Why should the government fund this?
If society needs it, they will insure the financial outcome for the job pays for the school. I've read that right now a lot of lawyers have trouble paying for their rather expensive schooling after they begin working. When you look at the number of lawyers we have per capita, it isn't hard to see why some of them can't earn enough.
Likewise we don't have enough nurses and it seems to have been this way for well over a decade now. Safe for teachers, but now that all the states are threatening layoffs we likely won't have enough teachers for....pretty much ever....
Nick
BR:
I agree and disagree. I can't possibly imagine more taxes than we have now, though. I am not joking here: HALF of most people's incomes go to a federal, state or lacal agency during a year. Whether it's a tax, license, fee, surcharge, whatever....HALF, BR. That is patently outrageous.
This is one reason, as I said, that people have so much debt. One cannot afford to live with modern niceities and still save for college, retirement, etc. Perhaps it is because people pay about 20% of every check in income and SS taxes alone.
You know what my school and county taxes are? $400 a month....on a house with a tax appraisal of like 170,000. My mortgage is only 980 a month! Tell me what is wrong here!?!? ALL of our governments take OBSCENELY high amoutns of money. Not just from the rich, but from two income families like mine...earning about 65K a year.
On the college thing: The example given with regard to the guy who cant afford colege without loans has a simple answer: GET THE LOANS. But no...the solution for BR and most other liberals is "the government should pay for it".
My Dad was at a party one time last year, and overheard a very Left leaning woman talking about HER father. She went on and on about the fact that he was 65 now and he needed more SS money and how the government wasn't doing enough. As far as I know, he was able-bodied. "What is he supposed to do?", she asked.
My father, who remained quiet until then, said: "Let me tell you something. My grandfather died on the job at 92 years old after working his whole life......and do you know why???" "No", the woman replied". My Dad simply said:
"BECAUSE HE NEEDED THE MONEY!"
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Is the US facing a future of deflation? Japan has had a deflationary period for more than a decade now. Is it possible we are facing deflationary pressures excluding some sectors? I believe we are if we don't act with some policy changes.
Here is my question. If we are facing a future of deflation which would harm the health of financial instutions as well as investor confidence can we allow it to procede with no actions taken? I would submit a big "no" we can not allow it to worsen.
What do we do then....
Fellowship
Thought I would stop ranting a second and actually address the topic.
I don't think we have to worry about deflation in the U.S. Our economy could easily handle inflation more easily, but it wouldn't survive deflation.
Part of the trend to fight deflation is allowing the dollar to trend lower against other currencies. Sammi Jo sees this as a conspiracy thing, but in reality the dollar going lower raises prices of imports which gives U.S. businesses a bit more price control and hence the can fight deflation.
As for the example with your truck, the automakers have simply, in my opinion, not realized they need to pass on technological improvements and keep the price the same. They got to take these as profits for a bit, especially with tricky financing where lots of people were burned by lease to own options.
Now they have returned those leased vehicles and found even more terrible lease terms (12,000 miles per year, etc.) However now they all think SUVs with power everything should be standard. In some ways cars should have a lot more standard features. Sort of like how optical mice will eventually replace mechnical mice and be cheaper.
In the meantime, automakers want to keep their old prices and find some suckers. Some will fall for another round of stupid financing. Auto financing always finds a way to screw you. The second way is just rebates like you received which really is just a way of dropping the price to what it should be.
In the conspiracy/money circles most things I have read have said that if anything we are going to go through some intentional inflation soon. Opening up the money supply (not just credit) will start to raise prices. Some have suggested that if they can do this in a controlled manner, they can dramatically reduce things like deficits while maintaining reasonable growth. Of course if this is believed then all the retirees would be screwed because inflation will kill their retirements which are based off of set amounts and those amounts will now be worth less compared to what they were before. This happens somewhat anyway, but the process would be accelerated.
Nick
PS SD2001, my degree is from CSULB (Cal State Long Beach)
Originally posted by SDW2001
On the college thing: The example given with regard to the guy who cant afford colege without loans has a simple answer: GET THE LOANS. But no...the solution for BR and most other liberals is "the government should pay for it".
[/B]
No. First, I'm not a liberal. Those classifications are silly.
Now that I have that out of the way...No, he shouldn't have to get the loans. When it comes to education, the government giving money to students cannot be classified as a handout. IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE OF THE FVCKING COUNTRY. Leave all the other crap out of this. I'm talking specifically about education. Don't bring up SS to help your argument because it's irrelevant. He shouldn't be screwed for being from a lower middle class family.
Listen, SDW, our nation is an ACADEMIC DISGRACE. It's no wonder people like you exist...and the problem is self-perpetuating.